§

Pantech Co., Ltd. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC

10862878 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2016)
Pantech Co., Ltd. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC

19 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,545 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,178 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  3. Net Moneyin v. Verisign

    545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 279 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

  4. Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP

    616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 209 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "hinged arm" could not be connected to itself

  5. Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

    663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 143 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "patentee's profit expectation may be considered in the overall reasonable royalty analysis"

  6. In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC

    793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 122 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Determining that, under the "broadest reasonable interpretation standard," the construction of the term "integrally attached" as "discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity" was reasonable

  7. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.

    789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 94 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the Board's construction of key claim terms was unreasonably broad in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and on that basis vacating and remanding the Board's finding of unpatentability

  8. Intellectual Prop. Dev., Inc. v. UA-Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc.

    336 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 97 times
    Finding that the party seeking to invalidate a claim as indefinite must show by clear and convincing evidence that one skilled in the art would not understand the scope of the claim when read in light of the specification

  9. Iris Corp. v. Japan Airlines Corp.

    769 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 18 times
    In IRIS Corp. v. Japan Airlines Corp., 769 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the district court placed heavy reliance on the facts that (a) the contract at issue involved a "uniquely governmental function" and (b) the Government had "unequivocally stated its position that suit under § 1498(a) is appropriate." Id.

  10. Application of Kelley

    49 C.C.P.A. 1359 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 21 times
    Stating that two claim terms may read upon the same physical structure

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,126 times   478 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,991 times   1000 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 161 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  14. Section 312 - Petitions

    35 U.S.C. § 312   Cited 128 times   119 Legal Analyses
    Governing inter partes reexamination

  15. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 192 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

  16. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  17. Section 42.12 - Sanctions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.12   Cited 10 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the Board "may impose a sanction"

  18. Section 42.54 - Protective order

    37 C.F.R. § 42.54   7 Legal Analyses

    (a) A party may file a motion to seal where the motion to seal contains a proposed protective order, such as the default protective order set forth in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. The motion must include a certification that the moving party has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute. The Board may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from disclosing confidential information, including, but

  19. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)For an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 141 . (1) (i) In all appeals, the notice of appeal required by 35 U.S.C. 142 must be filed with the Director by electronic mail to the email address indicated on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web page for the Office of the General Counsel. This electronically submitted notice will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday,